ABSTRACT
This chapter examines various views concerning the role of evaluative judgments in jurisprudential inquiry. It tackles the issue of whether descriptive jurisprudence is possible and, if it is, what exactly it might amount to. The chapter focuses mainly upon various interpretations of Herbert L. A. Hart's views. Hart's "Postscript" contains many remarks that are relevant to his view of correct jurisprudential methodology. The chapter also focuses on some recent work in methodology by Liam Murphy—considers arguments that should adjudicate between rival legal theories according to the beneficial moral and political consequences that result from understanding law in one way as opposed to another. It draws on recent work by Joseph Raz, Nicos Stavropoulos, Jules Coleman, and Ori Simchen—addresses the role of semantic theories in jurisprudential methodology. The chapter discusses what have come to be called criterial explanations of the concept of law in the context of Hart's methodological commitments.
